User talk:Kephir/archive/2013/11
 | The following is an archive of Kephir's talkpage for November 2013. Please do not edit this page. You may browse archives or on the current talk page. |
Int 13h - RBIL list.
[edit]What section of WP:NOTMANUAL makes you call this RBIL? I can't seem to find where a list of commands falls under that. 63.140.103.226 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The very first. And maybe sixth. WP:NOTDIR #6 (Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business) may also apply.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
- Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how other people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not. Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:
- Emphasis mine. The phrasing is very broad and generic, but the applicability rather evident. Listing all the calls is out of scope. We have Wikibooks (and maybe Wikiversity) for that. (And why not just use RBIL directly instead of the "content-free encyclopaedia that anyone can vandalise"?)
- RBIL itself is an acceptable external link per WP:ELYES #3, and probably an acceptable reference. (To make a link, just wrap it in square brackets, put a space and link description: like this. Citations are a bit tougher beast.) Keφr 07:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have reverted your bold change here. If you want to pursue it, please propose it on the talk page and see if there is a consensus. I think "Made up" ties in neatly with WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and as the actual definition is clear I don't think there is a serious danger of people trying to use it for fiction. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:JohnCD: To me, "WP:MADEUP" just reads like a jargon waiting to be misunderstood, while the speedy deletion criteria are often pointed at to people who might not necessarily get it. I expect many newbies to cling to the "made up" wording by replying "But it's true!", which misses the point of the criterion. (Look how many editors do not understand what "notability" means — it means enough sources exist to base an article upon.) But I do not feel strongly enough about it to push for it. Keφr 12:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)